Tanner, Great questions. I think a Christian man has a responsibility to provide all kinds of things for his family's well-being. I don't think the line is drawn in what we needs we are trying to provide for, but rather *how* we provide for those needs. We have to provide for our families within the limits of what is right, good, and godly. For instance, we provide food, but not by stealing or lying. So, yes, I do believe we should provide protection. I just don't believe we should do so by killing.
Wes, I love you and your calling. However, I think that you have a stance and are defending that stance instead of using critical thinking to investigate that stance. I could biblically argue almost every point you've made in this post but I will keep it simple. Is God the same yesterday, today and tomorrow? Does/did God use people to accomplish his will on Earth? Did/does that will include removing certain people from the Earth? Does the clay have any right to question the potter about his purpose? Peace is obviously the goal but the path is not as cut and dry as your very superficial and incomplete argument. I would abhor the thought of Christian veterans thinking they've not adhered to Christ's principles.
Phillip, thanks so much for sharing your thought. The questions of whether or not God uses violence, or whether or not God changes, are excellent questions that I will definitely include in future posts.
Briefly, I will simply say, God certainly uses human beings, and earthly governments, to inflict his wrath and judgment upon evildoers. There is no question about that. However, the question is, now that Jesus reigns as King, should those who are citizens of his kingdom participate *with* earthly governments in this way? I believe the answer is no, based on the Old Testament prophetic witness about the Messiah's kingdom, the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, and the history of the early church.
I do not believe God has changed at all. I believe he still does and will bring about his wrath on evildoers. However, I believe our marching orders, from our King, are to love our enemies and leave vengeance, judgment, and punishment to the wrath of God.
Unfortunately I think you are still focused on your defense. I believe your statements are attempting to limit God in your limited understanding. If God is in control then we are under that control (known or liking it or not) and we should not limit our obedience to what we believe he has in mind. We are indeed between worlds... we have our eyes toward His kingdom but we still live in the one ruled by the devil. While in this world, we are told to live by its rules and governance put in place by God himself. Living by the spirit of the law means we do our best to reconcile what it means to live as citizens of this world while being citizens in the one to come. Black and white stances do not make that possible. To be clear, I am not trying to change your conviction, I am attempting to use the Corinthian concept to get you to understand yours may not be the only "right" conviction.
Thanks for tackling such an important, albeit sensitive, topic that many rarely address. Although it is a difficult teaching, I agree that we should strive to understand and obey it.
I’m not convinced of your position but I can appreciate where you’re coming from. I certainly think sometimes we can be way too comfortable regarding the use of lethal force - it shows up in cavalier comments people make about hypothetical situations. Taking someone’s life is a serious matter and should never be discussed carelessly.
While Christians should not be predisposed to violence, I’m not convinced the Christian ethic precludes us from ever using violence to defend those whom God has entrusted to us. The example of John the Baptizer and Jesus does not seem to me an appropriate analog to what people normally face in defense-of-others situations. For example, Jesus and John were not in close proximity (the usual scenario people face today) to each other when John was arrested, imprisoned, and eventually executed. Would Jesus have used violence to defend John if they had been together? Maybe, maybe not. We don’t know for certain.
Maybe a better parallel would be Jesus’ rebuke of those who would cause “these little ones to stumble” (Luke 17:2). In their defense, Jesus stated that it would be better for them to have a millstone hung around their neck and tossed into the sea. Wouldn’t it be the Lord himself who does the hanging and tossing? Isn’t he implicitly endorsing the idea that sometimes violence is an appropriate response to evil?
And at the Cross, when he tells John to take care of his mother, would that not have included ensuring her physical safety? It’s difficult to imagine his tender concern for his mother extending to her wellbeing but not to her ultimate safety.
Thank you for your thoughts, brother. I agree that the example of Jesus and John could be pressed too far. However, I don't think it is stretch to say it proves we are not obligated to do everything within our power to protect others. There are times when doing everything within our power to protect someone would not be according to God's will.
When Jesus says, "It would be better for them to have..." he is not saying that this would happen to them, he is saying that happening to them would be better than what they would suffer. Presumably, they will not suffer having a millstone tied around their neck or being tossed into the sea. They will suffer the wrath of God. And yes, God's wrath is violent. However, we are told not to take that violence upon ourselves, but to "leave it" to the wrath of God. So, even though someone who misleads a child (or a disciple of Jesus) will suffer the violent wrath of God, I am not justified in being the instrument of God's wrath and punishing that person on God's behalf.
And, yes, John would have been tasked with ensuring Mary's physical safety. However, again, we would all acknowledge that ensuring someone's physical safety is limited to what is right, legal, ethical, etc. John wouldn't be justified in stealing in order to feed Mary, simply because he had a responsibility to care for her. So, we shouldn't assume that caring for her would include killing someone who threatened her well-being.
Good thoughts, brother. Thanks for sharing. Hope you're doing well.
Thanks Wes for igniting this important conversation.
We use violence as the first resort, not the last. Our natural instinct has to be retrained for avoidance, healthy boundaries, deescalation, etc. The world teaches us to respond in kind, while Jesus, Daniel, Paul/Philemon/Onesimus, etc. teach us radical resistance with a submissive oppositional posture.
One question that needs to be addressed, though, is how to define violence. It seems that there is a spectrum between killing, injuring, tackling, pushing, touching, endangering, manipulating, slandering, silence, and wishing any of this on another (which Jesus says is just as bad). My guess is the debate is where each of us fall on this spectrum.
I completely agree that there are a number of ways to defend ourselves, Running away is effective and highly encouraged. All throughout the bible there are Kings and Warriors that were faithful disciples of Christ. "loving innocent people" if someone is actively harming you or you family, how are they innocent? As a 22 year Vet with multiple combat deployments I just cant believe that defense of the weak was a sin.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Jeremy. I will soon write some posts about the violence in the Old Testament and how that reconciles with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Grace and peace to you, my brother.
Thank you Wes for the article. One thing to consider, some in today’s society would define spanking a child is an act of discipline as violence or even child abuse. Proverbs tells us “spare the rod and spoil the child”. We also know that GOD disciplines those who He loves. So causing harm can be an act of love, if done with the intent of preventing them from continuing on a destructive path (physically and or spiritually)
Taking another’s life, even in self defense is a final judgement that is only God’s right to do. We live in a country (thankfully) that gives us rights, but we should be willing to give up our rights for the benefit of others. One can injure an intruder without taking his life in order that they may have the opportunity to find Jesus and turn to follow him. You can act of love and harm someone, with the intent to love them enough to give them time to repent. God said “Vengeance is mine”, while Jesus our LORD, also said, love your enemies. A fine line indeed.
Tanner, Great questions. I think a Christian man has a responsibility to provide all kinds of things for his family's well-being. I don't think the line is drawn in what we needs we are trying to provide for, but rather *how* we provide for those needs. We have to provide for our families within the limits of what is right, good, and godly. For instance, we provide food, but not by stealing or lying. So, yes, I do believe we should provide protection. I just don't believe we should do so by killing.
jag kan komma in och öppna upp
Hi, sorry, not sure what this means.
Wes, I love you and your calling. However, I think that you have a stance and are defending that stance instead of using critical thinking to investigate that stance. I could biblically argue almost every point you've made in this post but I will keep it simple. Is God the same yesterday, today and tomorrow? Does/did God use people to accomplish his will on Earth? Did/does that will include removing certain people from the Earth? Does the clay have any right to question the potter about his purpose? Peace is obviously the goal but the path is not as cut and dry as your very superficial and incomplete argument. I would abhor the thought of Christian veterans thinking they've not adhered to Christ's principles.
Phillip, thanks so much for sharing your thought. The questions of whether or not God uses violence, or whether or not God changes, are excellent questions that I will definitely include in future posts.
Briefly, I will simply say, God certainly uses human beings, and earthly governments, to inflict his wrath and judgment upon evildoers. There is no question about that. However, the question is, now that Jesus reigns as King, should those who are citizens of his kingdom participate *with* earthly governments in this way? I believe the answer is no, based on the Old Testament prophetic witness about the Messiah's kingdom, the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, and the history of the early church.
I do not believe God has changed at all. I believe he still does and will bring about his wrath on evildoers. However, I believe our marching orders, from our King, are to love our enemies and leave vengeance, judgment, and punishment to the wrath of God.
Unfortunately I think you are still focused on your defense. I believe your statements are attempting to limit God in your limited understanding. If God is in control then we are under that control (known or liking it or not) and we should not limit our obedience to what we believe he has in mind. We are indeed between worlds... we have our eyes toward His kingdom but we still live in the one ruled by the devil. While in this world, we are told to live by its rules and governance put in place by God himself. Living by the spirit of the law means we do our best to reconcile what it means to live as citizens of this world while being citizens in the one to come. Black and white stances do not make that possible. To be clear, I am not trying to change your conviction, I am attempting to use the Corinthian concept to get you to understand yours may not be the only "right" conviction.
Wes,
Thanks for tackling such an important, albeit sensitive, topic that many rarely address. Although it is a difficult teaching, I agree that we should strive to understand and obey it.
I’m not convinced of your position but I can appreciate where you’re coming from. I certainly think sometimes we can be way too comfortable regarding the use of lethal force - it shows up in cavalier comments people make about hypothetical situations. Taking someone’s life is a serious matter and should never be discussed carelessly.
While Christians should not be predisposed to violence, I’m not convinced the Christian ethic precludes us from ever using violence to defend those whom God has entrusted to us. The example of John the Baptizer and Jesus does not seem to me an appropriate analog to what people normally face in defense-of-others situations. For example, Jesus and John were not in close proximity (the usual scenario people face today) to each other when John was arrested, imprisoned, and eventually executed. Would Jesus have used violence to defend John if they had been together? Maybe, maybe not. We don’t know for certain.
Maybe a better parallel would be Jesus’ rebuke of those who would cause “these little ones to stumble” (Luke 17:2). In their defense, Jesus stated that it would be better for them to have a millstone hung around their neck and tossed into the sea. Wouldn’t it be the Lord himself who does the hanging and tossing? Isn’t he implicitly endorsing the idea that sometimes violence is an appropriate response to evil?
And at the Cross, when he tells John to take care of his mother, would that not have included ensuring her physical safety? It’s difficult to imagine his tender concern for his mother extending to her wellbeing but not to her ultimate safety.
Thank you for your thoughts, brother. I agree that the example of Jesus and John could be pressed too far. However, I don't think it is stretch to say it proves we are not obligated to do everything within our power to protect others. There are times when doing everything within our power to protect someone would not be according to God's will.
When Jesus says, "It would be better for them to have..." he is not saying that this would happen to them, he is saying that happening to them would be better than what they would suffer. Presumably, they will not suffer having a millstone tied around their neck or being tossed into the sea. They will suffer the wrath of God. And yes, God's wrath is violent. However, we are told not to take that violence upon ourselves, but to "leave it" to the wrath of God. So, even though someone who misleads a child (or a disciple of Jesus) will suffer the violent wrath of God, I am not justified in being the instrument of God's wrath and punishing that person on God's behalf.
And, yes, John would have been tasked with ensuring Mary's physical safety. However, again, we would all acknowledge that ensuring someone's physical safety is limited to what is right, legal, ethical, etc. John wouldn't be justified in stealing in order to feed Mary, simply because he had a responsibility to care for her. So, we shouldn't assume that caring for her would include killing someone who threatened her well-being.
Good thoughts, brother. Thanks for sharing. Hope you're doing well.
Well put. These are objections I hear often since I became committed to nonviolence.
Thanks, Jake!
Thanks Wes for igniting this important conversation.
We use violence as the first resort, not the last. Our natural instinct has to be retrained for avoidance, healthy boundaries, deescalation, etc. The world teaches us to respond in kind, while Jesus, Daniel, Paul/Philemon/Onesimus, etc. teach us radical resistance with a submissive oppositional posture.
One question that needs to be addressed, though, is how to define violence. It seems that there is a spectrum between killing, injuring, tackling, pushing, touching, endangering, manipulating, slandering, silence, and wishing any of this on another (which Jesus says is just as bad). My guess is the debate is where each of us fall on this spectrum.
Thank you, brother. And great point. That’s actually my next post, defining some terms around violence and nonviolence. God bless.
Wes,
I completely agree that there are a number of ways to defend ourselves, Running away is effective and highly encouraged. All throughout the bible there are Kings and Warriors that were faithful disciples of Christ. "loving innocent people" if someone is actively harming you or you family, how are they innocent? As a 22 year Vet with multiple combat deployments I just cant believe that defense of the weak was a sin.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Jeremy. I will soon write some posts about the violence in the Old Testament and how that reconciles with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Grace and peace to you, my brother.
Amen, brother.
Thank you Wes for the article. One thing to consider, some in today’s society would define spanking a child is an act of discipline as violence or even child abuse. Proverbs tells us “spare the rod and spoil the child”. We also know that GOD disciplines those who He loves. So causing harm can be an act of love, if done with the intent of preventing them from continuing on a destructive path (physically and or spiritually)
Taking another’s life, even in self defense is a final judgement that is only God’s right to do. We live in a country (thankfully) that gives us rights, but we should be willing to give up our rights for the benefit of others. One can injure an intruder without taking his life in order that they may have the opportunity to find Jesus and turn to follow him. You can act of love and harm someone, with the intent to love them enough to give them time to repent. God said “Vengeance is mine”, while Jesus our LORD, also said, love your enemies. A fine line indeed.